🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: sci.space.shuttle
Article #3786

Re: Shuttle Bashing

#3786
From: Mark E. Johnson
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 16:28
21 lines
1543 bytes
>    The main point I want to make is that you NEED the shuttle to build
> the space station.

My coworkers and I were discussing this yesterday (we're designing the
Space Station solar arrays). Isn't the shuttle the primary reason Space
Station Freedom is being built and deployed in a relatively low orbit?
That's what I always understood. And let me tell you, that is a *big*
problem, in terms of an environment that has too much debris and is hostile
(corrosive) to organic materials--such as composites and most lubricants.
Granted, we didn't know all of this until LDEF was retrieved.

What would it have taken (too late now) to build Freedom in a higher orbit?
More shuttle flights, at less cargo per flight? Or another launch vehicle
altogether, like Shuttle/C or NLS?

What ever happened to Shuttle/C? When I worked for Rockwell five years ago,
that sounded like a viable alternative.

_____________________________________________________________________________
-Mark Johnson                              
mjohnson@jedi.decnet.lockheed.com
Technical Details
Message-ID: <mjohnson-211192082742@129.197.97.65>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!kronos.arc.nasa.gov!iscnvx!news
References: <1992Nov19.155527.7807@cbfsb.cb.att.com>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!kronos.arc.nasa.gov!iscnvx!news
From: mjohnson@jedi.decnet.lockheed.com (Mark E. Johnson)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Bashing
Message-ID: <mjohnson-211192082742@129.197.97.65>
Followup-To: sci.space.shuttle
Sender: news@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com (News)
Organization: Lockheed, USC, and UT-Austin
References: <1992Nov19.155527.7807@cbfsb.cb.att.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 16:28:12 GMT
Lines: 21